Psychology

PSYCHOLOGY, BIBLICAL COUNSELING, AND THE EMOTIONAL HEALTH'GOSPEL'The area of psychology is yet another battleground between fundamentalist Christianityand not only the secular world, but also modern evangelicals whom they already see assoftening on "separation", traditional worship styles, doctrine and the Bible. Manyevangelicals have long criticized psychology or "pop" psychology as taking away man'sresponsibility before God, and just making him into a helpless animal who can't controlhis desires, and therefore just needs to indulge them.It is also accused of denying the Bible, and Christians are criticized for using it. Jack Wyrtzen, in a letter to

Christianity Today

(8-93), responding to a couple of articles themagazine had done on psychology in the church, stated that all we need is a "dose" of 2Tim.4:1-8, and "the Book, the Blood and the Blessed Hope". Another writer compared itto the "me-ism" in America society circa 1960-63 (the key period when many Christianssaw this country as falling out of a godly past), and claimed it is "a symptom of biblicalilliteracy and the neglect of personal sanctification through the fullness of the HolySpirit".Yet as with other areas, these conservative Christians will themselves be similarlycriticized by even more conservative Christians. A whole "psychoheresy" confrontingmovement has sprung up in separationist fundamentalism. Leaders as conservative asJames Dobson and Charles Stanley are criticized for using "psychological concepts",referred to as [other] "gospels". Even Hank Hanegraaf of CRI, who frequently criticizessociety's emphasis on psychology rather than sin is criticized for publishing a book thatsupposedly uses psychological concepts. (An ad for a book criticizing him mocks hisexcellent exposé on certain aberrant hyper-charismatic movements:

Counterfeit Revival,

as "Counterfeit

Survival

" (Bobgan, Psychoheresy Awareness Ministries*), since thisother book he publishes supposedly supports "unbiblical" methods of overcoming sin.)If all of this weren't enough, Biblical Discernment Ministries"*(http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/) criticizes Bob Jones III, (from the same brandof "Independant Baptist" fundamentalism that condemns "psychoheresy") because hiswife so much as wrote some book about abuse. In fact, just about every other well knownChristian leader, no matter how conservative, was listed in a series of "exposés" (for using psychology and/or "ecumenical leanings" --i.e. tolerant of Roman Catholicism) asif they were cultists or other aberrant leaders! (Hanegraaf's name appeared right next toBenny Hinn and Rodney Howard-Browne-- two of the people he exposes in

Counterfeit Revival

!) So here we have another issue, like music, Bible translations, and all these other matters of "separation", where people will always claim to be holier than the next guy, nomatter how holy that next person already thinks he is.All of these modern leaders are being accused of denying that "the Bible has all theanswers" for, or is "sufficient" to solve all of man's problems, and therefore in practice,rejecting the authority or inerrancy of God's Word. This is based on 2 Pet.1:2 whichstates that God/Christ "has given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness".This is taken to mean that nothing but the Bible is ever to be used to solve problems. Butas we will see, verses like this are actually being misapplied. Some of the critics advocate

"Biblical counseling"*, where someone in the church counsels a struggling person rather than him going to see a therapist. I encountered many of these concepts in a Bible classon counseling (same institute and semester as the music class I discuss elsewhere). Justwhat is this "Biblical answer" they keep promoting?*

Even the "Biblical Counseling Movement" and its associated organizations is coming under fire fromthese two ministries. (the Bobgans were apparently once apart of the movement, but at some point turnedagainst it). This due to BCM's usage of fee based service (legitimate concern) and calling the person beingcounseled a "counselee" and operating outside of the church building (petty issues). But as they all speak of a "biblical" method of counseling, they can still fit in the category of BCM.

While these critics say a lot of things that are true, I'm concerned that this "biblicalcounseling" is based on an overly simplistic view of counseling as our alternative to psychological therapy.

The message is that a person's problems are just from his"sin" or "unholiness"

; even the supposed 'mentally ill', or 'addicted', or people who"struggle" with certain sins, etc. So a brother counseling him needs only to just give theverses that pertain to their problems, (i.e. the "dose" of the "Book"), and it is up to him toobey what he has heard. Also to point to salvation (by "the Blood") and "promises" of rewards in Heaven ("the Blessed Hope"); which should be able to outweigh all of hisearly concerns and automatically heal him.This is all summarized and epitomized in this statement (from a discussion addressing askeptic's question of "Why won't God heal amputees"):I have chronic pain from two failed back surgeries. There was a time in my lifewhen massive doses of opioid pain medication would not relieve the pain. It wasat that point in my life that

I prayed that God would take my life. He did. Hecaused the old man to die

and a new one to be born again. My life was never thesame.

I still have chronic pain

. Now my pain reminds me of His sovereign graceand mercy. The pain that used to be the

focal point in my life, is not the focalpoint anymore.... Jesus is

. Jesus is so big in my life that pain is only a small partof it. Although

the pain is still there, it is as if Jesus has become the painreliever... as if He takes the pain for me. I am able to bear it. He has healedme.

This type of statement is prevalent in so many "testimonies", for both physical andemotional pain. (Making it sound like a learned cliché more than thought-out actualreality). God "makes the pain not matter"; that is, if you have really "

given Him

your life"as we see it defined here. The person's desire to physically die to relieve the pain is turnedinto the standard pun of changing the meaning of "death" from physical to spiritual ("theold man"). This actually implies that the degree of wanting to escape from certain pain(i.e. dying in order to be relieved) is a quality of unregenerate nature, which is suddenly"cured" by being born again ("the new life").That's how this "testimonial" approach usually goes. "I gave my {life, pain, anger,sorrow, loneliness, lust} to Christ, and, "it no longer controls my life"! (While physical pain is what is mentioned in this particular example; when the subject becomes thingssuch as "focal points", wanting to die, etc. we are entering the realm of mental andemotional pain, which is the sort of things people consult psychology for).

The crux of the paradox lies in the claim that Christ "

takes

" the pain from you, yetthey'll admit that yes, you still feel whatever is ailing you

, and it is "an uphill battle for the rest of your life", and by "faith and not feelings" that you believe you are healed, andthen, "miraculously", God "changes" your

attitude

. Yet, we here

sensationalize

this,making it

sound

as if Jesus really does take the pain

away

, as if you actually wouldn'tfeel it anymore! But then, when it doesn't work like that, we say it is not about feelings.God's will for us is not the removal of pain anyway, but "becoming like Him" (i.e. Christ,who suffered for us), many will add. Since the "testimonies" talk about it no longer beingthe "focal point", then it sounds

dismissive

of the pain. Like telling the person "aahh, pain really doesn't matter".While this contradictory jargon is almost universal across modern Christianity, what'smost alarming in the case of the old-line fundamentalists (and some others) criticizing psychology, is that

this ends up being their sole replacement/alternative for therapy!

It is said to be "sufficient" to cure the problem. (And if you don't believe so, then you aredenigrating the Bible and the Church).Yet when Christ healed people in the Bible; they were actually

cured

of their ailment; notmerely having their attitude or focus on it changed. He did not leave the ailment andclaim freedom from pain did not matter, or was not His ultimate will. There is noscriptural basis for this new use of the concept of "healing". So while we may want to getthe person to change his focus; we should not frame this up as Christ "taking" pain away,and then conclude from that, that the person doesn't need any other sort of help findingrelief; or that he doesn't need any literal relief at all. As we will see, scriptures such asPaul's "thorn in the flesh" are appealed to in cases like this, but that is not saying thatnobody ever needs relief (physical or mental) from anything. Nevertheless, it is then suggested that if the person receiving this "biblical" method of counseling still don't get over the problem, then they are just "harboring" the sin, and"God is not helping them". ("Don't try to help a person God is just not helping", said theteacher of the class). So therapy would be a waste of time anyway; they must just be"unwilling to change". Perhaps, they're not even saved or "spirit filled", or "right with theLord", some will even speculate!On the Bobgans' psychoheresy-aware.org site, I see discussions of subjects like abuse,and while pain may not be an excuse for various actions (a wife refusing to "submit" to ahusband, etc), still, in maintaining that point, pain is generally dismissed. Once again,sparing us from pain is not God's main concern, and such "pain" can be "good" for us in"bringing us closer to Christ".You also see a distinction between "happiness" and

joy

, used a lot in Christian teachingon pain. Joy, the way it is usually defined by these teachers, basically ends up as anoutward mask of "happiness" despite the circumstances or how you really feel inside. Sothey preach "joy", making it sound appealing to those who are unhappy in life, but it isreally nothing like what it sounds like.